Luther Thought Purgatory was an Open Question?

Beggars All Reformation and Aplogetics ^ | May 04, 2013 | James Swan

[boatbums]

Luther Thought Purgatory was an Open Question?

I came across this link posted on the Catholic Answers Forums: The Hope of Eternal Life. The link is ecumenical in nature, an attempt to smooth over the edges between Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism. This is the excerpt that was posted on CAF:

181. The most explicit discussion of purgatory in the Confessions comes in the 1537 Smalcald Articles, II, 2, which addressed the mass as sacrifice. Besides being itself a violation of the Gospel, the mass as sacrifice "has produced many noxious maggots and the excrement of various idolatries" (§11), the first of which is purgatory. Purgatory, "with all its pomp, requiem Masses, and transactions, is to be regarded as an apparition of the devil for it obscures the chief article..." (§12). Behind Luther's typically extreme language, however, a more nuanced understanding is elaborated. "Concerning the dead we have received neither command nor instruction. For these reasons, it may be best to abandon it [derhalben man es mocht wohl lassen], even if it were neither error nor idolatry" (§12). In a revised version of the article, Luther added a discussion of the authority of Augustine claimed for the doctrine. "When they have given up their purgatorial 'Mass fairs' (something Augustine never dreamed of), then we will discuss with them whether St. Augustine's word, lacking support from Scripture, may be tolerated and whether the dead may be commemorated at the sacrament. It will not do to formulate articles of faith on the basis of the holy Fathers' works or words" (§14f). The existence of purgatory is not dogmatically denied. Rather, 1) the existence of purgatory is not taught by Scripture and thus cannot be binding doctrine, and 2) belief in purgatory is now hopelessly bound up with unacceptable practices. A belief that could be discussed in principle is concretely objectionable because of its associations.

This excerpt is fascinating because it argues Luther believed:

-Purgatory isn't taught in Scripture, but yet may exist.
-Purgatory is only to be avoided because of its associations with "unacceptable practices."
-If these practices were removed, a proper discussion on purgatory could occur.

According to this article here is Luther's view of purgatory: "A belief that could be discussed in principle is concretely objectionable because of its associations." In other words, purgatory, for Luther, was an open question. Get rid of the abuses attached to it, and then it could be discussed.

In regard to the Smalcald Articles, LW states, "Under these circumstances the elector of Saxony instructed Luther in a letter of Dec. 11, 1536, to prepare a statement indicating the articles of faith in which concessions might be made for the sake of peace and the articles in which no concessions could be made."

Here are the two statements from the Smalcald Articles alluded to above. Read them for yourself and see if Luther is willing to make a concession on purgatory for the sake of peace:

Luther states in Article 12:

12 The first is purgatory. They were so occupied with requiem Masses, with vigils, with the weekly, monthly, and yearly celebrations of requiems, with the common week, with All Souls’ Day, and with soul-baths that the Mass was used almost exclusively for the dead although Christ instituted the sacrament for the living alone. Consequently purgatory and all the pomp, services, and business transactions associated with it are to be regarded as nothing else than illusions of the devil, for purgatory, too, is contrary to the fundamental article that Christ alone, and not the work of man, can help souls. Besides, nothing has been commanded or enjoined upon us with reference to the dead. All this may consequently be discarded, apart entirely from the fact that it is error and idolatry.

Luther states in Article 13:

13 The papists here adduce passages from Augustine and some of the Fathers who are said to have written about purgatory. They suppose that we do not understand for what purpose and to what end the authors wrote these passages. St. Augustine (tr-467) does not write that there is a purgatory, nor does he cite any passage of the Scriptures that would constrain him to adopt such an opinion. He leaves it undecided whether or not there is a purgatory and merely mentions that his mother asked that she be remembered at the altar or sacrament. Now, this is nothing but a human opinion of certain individuals and cannot establish an article of faith. That is the prerogative of God alone. 14 But our papists make use of such human opinions to make men believe their shameful, blasphemous, accursed traffic in Masses which are offered for souls in purgatory, etc. They can never demonstrate these things from Augustine. Only when they have abolished their traffic in purgatorial Masses (which St. Augustine never dreamed of) shall we be ready to discuss with them whether statements of St. Augustine are to be accepted when they are without the support of the Scriptures and whether the dead are to be commemorated in the sacrament. 15 It will not do to make articles of faith out of the holy Fathers’ words or works. Otherwise what they ate, how they dressed, and what kind of houses they lived in would have to become articles of faith — as has happened in the case of relics. This means that the Word of God shall establish articles of faith and no one else, not even an angel.

The reading given to these statements by The Hope of Eternal Life downplays the first explicit rejection of purgatory, and sees the real Luther in his willingness to discuss what Augustine meant when "purgatorial masses" are abolished. The problem as I see it, is this reading of the Smalcald Articles isolates these statements from Luther's total written corpus, particularly any writings after the Smalcald Articles.

For instance, in his later sermons on Genesis, Luther states something with similar characteristics to the Smalcald articles. Note particularly the reference to Augustine:

The pope invents four separate places for the dead.The first is the hell of the damned. The second is purgatory, and Thomas Aquinas says that hell is the middle point, so to speak. It is surrounded by purgatory. But around this there is a third circle. It is for unbaptized infants. The fourth circle is the limbo of the fathers. Here the godly dwelt before the resurrection of Christ. These are nothing but dreams and human inventions. Peter and Paul state clearly that the demons move about in the air. With regard to what Paul says see Eph. 2:2, and in 2 Peter 2:4 it is stated that “God did not spare the angels when they sinned but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment.” With these statements I rest content, and I do not inquire into things higher than those handed down by the apostles. Of purgatory there is no mention in Holy Scripture; it is a lie of the devil, in order that the papists may have some market days and snares for catching money. The sophists agree with the pope because of Thomas. But Thomas does not concern us. Augustine makes mention of purgatory somewhere, but he speaks very obscurely. Therefore I do not believe that those four separate classes really exist; for Scripture does not speak this way but testifies that the dead saints are gathered to their people, or to those who believe in the Messiah and awaited His coming, just as Adam, together with all his descendants, died in faith in Christ. But how these saints are kept in definite places, we do not know. [Luther, M. (1999, c1966). Vol. 8: Luther's works, vol. 8 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 45-50 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (8:316). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

Here again Luther explicitly denies purgatory, then mentions the obscurity of Augustine. He then goes on to deny that "four separate classes really exist." In the same volume, Luther refers to "Masses, purgatory, indulgences, and prayers to the dead" as false forms of worship (LW 8:230). Elsewhere in Luther's lectures on Genesis he states,

[P]urgatory is the greatest falsehood, because it is based on ungodliness and unbelief; for they deny that faith saves, and they maintain that satisfaction for sins is the cause of salvation. Therefore he who is in purgatory is in hell itself; for these are his thoughts: “I am a sinner and must render satisfaction for my sins; therefore I shall make a will and shall bequeath a definite amount of money for building churches and for buying prayers and sacrifices for the dead by the monks and priests.” Such people die in a faith in works and have no knowledge of Christ. Indeed, they hate Him. We die in faith in Christ, who died for our sins and rendered satisfaction for us. He is my Bosom, my Paradise, my Comfort, and my Hope. [Luther, M. (1999, c1964). Vol. 4: Luther's works, vol. 4 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 21-25 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (4:315). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

And here:

The third sphere is that of purgatory, into which neither the damned nor infants enter; it is for those who, while they believe, yet have not rendered satisfaction for their sins. The souls of these are ransomed by means of indulgences. From this source comes the hogwash of indulgences and the entire papistic religion.The fourth place is the limbo of the fathers. They say that Christ descended to this place, broke it open, and set free—not from hell but from the limbo—the fathers who were troubled by the longing and waiting for Christ but were not enduring punishment or torments. With these silly ideas the papists have filled the church and the world. We have overturned all this completely and maintain that unbaptized infants do not have such a sphere. But in what state they are or what becomes of them we commend to the goodness of God. They do not have faith or Baptism; but whether God receives them in an extraordinary manner and gives them faith is not stated in the Word, and we dare not set down anything as certain. To be deprived of the vision of God is hell itself. They admit that they have will and intellect, especially concerning the vision of God and life; but these are falsehoods. And purgatory is the greatest falsehood, because it is based on ungodliness and unbelief; for they deny that faith saves, and they maintain that satisfaction for sins is the cause of salvation. Therefore he who is in purgatory is in hell itself; for these are his thoughts: “I am a sinner and must render satisfaction for my sins; therefore I shall make a will and shall bequeath a definite amount of money for building churches and for buying prayers and sacrifices for the dead by the monks and priests.” Such people die in a faith in works and have no knowledge of Christ. Indeed, they hate Him. We die in faith in Christ, who died for our sins and rendered satisfaction for us. He is my Bosom, my Paradise, my Comfort, and my Hope. [Luther, M. (1999, c1964). Vol. 4: Luther's works, vol. 4 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 21-25 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (4:315). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

Comments from Luther similar to these could be greatly multiplied, which is why some Lutherans see any affirmation that Luther held purgatory was an "open question" as a lie of the Devil.

[ebb tide]

Did you forget?

I’m a Catholic. I’m not into Luther’s sola scriptura nonsense.

[daniel1212]

And yes, I lay the opening of the door to Oneness Pentecostals and Jehovah's Witnesses at his door because when it comes to "anyone can interpret any which way" it ends up as "a little knowledge of something is a dangerous thing" - instead of opening themselves up fully it becomes "my interpretation is the greatest"

You can only wish that the Roman model for unity fostered more and stronger unity than when Scripture is strongly esteemed as the accurate and wholly inspired word of God, with its basic literal hermeneutic. For the reality is that official church statements are not the Scriptural basis for determination of what she believers, versus what she otherwise says and does and effects .

And beyond the smoke and mirrors and pomp and ceremony, Catholicism is an unholy amalgamation of variant beliefs, from far Left liberal to ultra traditional. All of which for decades Rome has manifestly considered such members in life and in death.

Consistent with this, her own Bible Scholarship abounds with liberalism, as has been manifest for decades in the notes and helps of her own official American Bible.

Yet RCs would have us leave conservative evangelical fellowships and become brethren with the likes of Ted Kennedy RCs.

Meanwhile, for decades (if less so now) evangelical-types have testified to the greatest degree of unity in basic beliefs asked of them in poll after poll, and manifest such a conservative unity that they are the most targeted religious groups both liberals and Catholics alike.

And it is hardly RC leadership that effectively contends against cults such as you mention, but it has been Bible Christians who are found to be most active contending against them. And rather than these cults being like evangelical churches in seeking to be faithful to what the flock finds Scripture teaching, they actually basically operate more like the RC model, in which leadership presumes a level of ensured veracity above that which is written of leadership, and such hold to the most serious errors.

Thus while we certainly have our problems, your charges fail critical analysis, and its remains that Rome is the most manifest deformation the NT church, with Catholic distinctives not being manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

[daniel1212]

You can't save yourself, but you must be completely sinless in heaven, so god purifies you.

Which means that Christians go from being forgiven, regenerated, and made to spiritually positional set together with Christ in Heaven, and having immediate access into the holy of holies to meet with God, (Eph. 2:6; Heb. 10:19) to being excluded from entering Heaven after they ceased from sin at death. (Romans 6:7)

And in RC theology, being completely sinless is not enough, but instead they must become actually good enough to be with God, which is how they are said to be justified in the first place, despite yet having a sinful nature.

Instead, while nothing unclean shall enter God's Holy City, (Rv. 21:27) believers are already washed, sanctified and justified (1Co. 6:11) by effectual faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood, (Rem. 3;25 — 5:1; Eph. 2:8,9; Titus 3:5) and are already accepted in the Beloved on His account, and made to spiritually sit with Christ in Heaven, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6) and by Him have direct access to God in the holy of holies in prayer. (Heb. 10:19) And who, if they die in faith will go to be with the Lord at death. (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)

And with the only suffering after this life being that of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's revelation and disapproval) at the judgment seat of Christ, which one is saved despite the loss of, and which does not occur until the Lord's return and believers resurrection. (1Cor. 3:8ff; 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) And which resurrection being the only transformative the believer looks forward to after this life (Rm. 8:23; 2Co. 5:1-4; Phil 3:20,21; 1Jn. 3:2) — not purgatory, which suffering commences at death in order to enable souls to enter Heaven.

[daniel1212]

There are none except Jainism and Judaism that have been longer

Nonsense. Rather than distinctively being the one true church, tan as said, it is distinctive Catholic beliefs that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels).

[Mark17]

I don’t know any Catholics, who wear the scapular today.

Last time I checked (less than a year ago) they were STILL being sold.

I am sure they are still being sold, for a profit. Isn’t it always about the money? 🙃 All I meant was, that me and my catholic school classmates, all stopped wearing our uncomfortable scapulars, when we entered catholic high school, but I don’t remember why we did that. How is it any different from the Mormon’s magic underwear? 👍😆

[Luircin]

The money... AND the vanity. Or perhaps emotional investment and reinforcement like the kind that keeps people in Scientology.

Why else would people believe self-contradictory OTC nonsense?

[daniel1212]

The Pauline epistles are still considered holy text. So whether he was a nut or not, the words in that epistle saying "saved, but as through fire" mentioned in 1 Cor 3:15? are valid scripture.

But this text utterly fails to teach Purgatory, for to reiterate, the only suffering after this life that the NT clearly speaks of is that of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's revelation and disapproval) at the judgment seat of Christ, which one is saved despite the loss of, and which does not occur until the Lord's return and believers resurrection. (1Cor. 3:8ff; 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) Versus Purgatory, which suffering commences at death in order to enable souls to enter Heaven.

[Mark17]

Why else would people believe self-contradictory OTC nonsense?

I don’t know bro, and I used to be a OTC member. I don’t know what my problem was, but I got it corrected. My family almost had a funeral for me, once I left the OTC, but I just moved on. 👍

[daniel1212]

So Luther had no problem with a person of Jewish origin who followed Luther -- yet if they didn't listen to him, he called for fire and brimstone on them. Luther called Calvinists and Catholics the same -- essentially he was brilliant and had a massive ego (this is separate from his theological views - I'm talking about his person, and that's different from his theology) -- he basically hated anyone who didn't follow him

Luther wasn't an anti-semite like the Nazis and neither were Catholics in the Middle Ages. Both of these would have been appalled at the Nazi killing

You mean we can actually agree on something? Some RCs would take issue with you here. And both Catholics and Luther could attack not only Jewish beliefs but also the contemporary Jewish culture (which I do not think was characterized by doing things that endeared them to the public) without attacking the race, just as we can attack the American black culture, which is not the same as attacking the race (unless you are race-card holding liberal).

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“How is it (brown scapula) any different from the Mormon’s magic underwear?”

It is just as powerful!

They both do nothing, except make the wearer think he is more righteous.

Same with “miraculous medals”, prayers to Mary, candles, holy water, rituals, etc.

[daniel1212]

The Jewish canon was closed after Christians appear,

Actually, "The theory that Jamnia finalised the canon, first proposed by Heinrich Graetz in 1871,[2] was popular for much of the 20th century. However, it was increasingly questioned from the 1960s onward, and the theory has been largely discredited."- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia

"There is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed: some scholars argue that the Jewish canon was fixed earlier by the Hasmonean dynasty (140 and c. 116 B.C.)." — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_canon

Yet it is also a FACT - based on the internal testimony of the NT - that by the time of Christ an extensive body (canon) of writings had been established as wholly inspired-of-God and authoritative, which as a body were referred to as Scripture. Obviously the hearers knew what this referred to.

And thus it is also a fact that upon which prophetic and doctrinal foundation a group of itinerant preachers and Preacher established the NT church, in dissent from the magisterial stewards of Scripture, but who never contended against the inspired writings that these preachers invoked as the authoritative word of God ("Scripture," it is written," etc.).

And as is abundantly evidenced, the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

Remember that the Dead Sea Scrolls have other books in their canon

Which IIRC these were in a separate chamber, and it is quite obvious they their existence did not mean they were necessarily candidates for canonicity.

Also Maccabees 2 was included in the Codex Sinaiticus which dates to the 4th century.

And? all three codices [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. (Roger Beckwith, [Anglican priest, Oxford BD and Lambeth DD], The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Eerdmans 1986], p. 382, 383; Triablogue: The legendary Alexandrian canon)

Edward Earle Ellis attests,
“No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” (E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity [Baker 1992], 34-35.

And contrary to the presumption that the Septuagint contained all the apocryphal books at that time, for which there is no extant historical evidence. The earliest existing Greek manuscripts which contain some of them date from the 4th Century and are understood to have been placed therein by Christians.

Similarly Augustine and the Synod of Hippo in the 300s considered it as canon

And? Many other esteem men did not, and these councils were not ecumenical, leaving the door open to disagreement until after the death of Luther. Thus as even the Catholic Encyclopedia states as regards the Middle Ages,

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament)

on what basis do you reject it and yet accept other books as canon?

On what basis did common souls correctly ascertain both men and writings as being of God before there was a RC church which presumed she was essential to assuredly know this?

[ebb tide]

Sola scriptura is not in the Bible; yet you seem to accept it as fact.

[Elsie]

I just KNOW my goats are!!

At least the barn cats will catch a mouse every now and then!

[Elsie]

Christ’s death is sufficient to cover all sin for the person who entrusts himself to Him alone, apart from human efforts and false rituals.

Now wait just a ding-danged minute here!!

What about...

 

(Especially #9!!!!)

---

The 15 promises

(Given to St. Dominic and Blessed Alan de la Roche)

1	Whoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall receive powerful graces.
2.	I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the Rosary.
3.	The Rosary shall be a powerful armor against hell, it will destroy vice, decrease sin, and defeat heresies
4.	It will cause virtue and good works to flourish; it will obtain for souls the abundant mercy of God; it will withdraw the hearts of people from the love of the world and its vanities, and will lift them to the desire of eternal things. Oh, that souls would sanctify themselves by this means.
5.	The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall not perish.
6.	Whoever shall recite the Rosary devoutly, applying Himself to the consideration of its Sacred Mysteries shall never be conquered by misfortune. God will not chastise Him in His justice, he shall not perish by an unprovided death; if he be just, he shall remain in the grace of God, and become worthy of eternal life.
7.	Whoever shall have a true devotion for the Rosary shall not die without the Sacraments of the Church.
8.	Those who are faithful to recite the Rosary shall have during their life and at their death the light of God and the plentitude of His graces; at the moment of death they shall participate in the merits of the Saints in Paradise.
9.	I  shall deliver from purgatory those who have been devoted to the Rosary.
10.	The faithful children of the Rosary shall merit a high degree of glory in Heaven.
11.	You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the Rosary.
12.	All those who propagate the Holy Rosary shall be aided by me in their necessities.
13.	I  have obtained from my Divine Son that all the advocates of the Rosary shall have for intercessors the entire celestial court during their life and at the hour of death
14.	All who recite the Rosary are my children, and brothers and sisters of my only Son, Jesus Christ.
15.	Devotion of my Rosary is a great sign of predestination.

 

"The Most Holy Virgin in these last times in which we live has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Rosary to such an extent that there is no problem,

no matter how difficult it is, wheter temporal or above all spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families...that cannot be solved by the Rosary.

There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we cannot resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary."

Sister Lucia dos Santos

--Catholic_Wannabe_Dude(Mary believes in purgatory; so; to be on the SAFE side; so do I!)

[Elsie]

Don’t the Mormons have something similar to this?

NOW you've done it!!!

You'll get that idiot ELSIE ranting about MormonISM and highjack the whole thread!!

[Elsie]

Don’t the Mormons have something similar to this?

Doest thou suggest the Garment?

---

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1999/09/the-temple-garment-an-outward-expression-of-an-inward-commitment?lang=eng

[Elsie]

Just post a certain historical fact and your post will be deleted. It’s just that simple.

What 'fact' might that be?

Freely FReepmail me.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Rosary has no magic powers. Bogus.

[Elsie]

Catholics here have to argue against ignorance and watch their posts get deleted when they post historical facts.

Wouldn't it be fun to use the WayBack machine to recede about 10 years or so on FR and watch Prots get kicked off for injuring some thin-skinned Catholics sensibilities?

[Elsie]

...BUT we believe in a loving God, so we believe they must be in heaven,...

Others believe in a wrathful God, so now what???

---

What any of us 'believe' probably has little effect on what actually is happening.

5 blind men inspecting an elephant comes to mind.